(Untitled)

[abject_reptile]

Oh, yuck. Charles Williams: sadist or Rosicrucian saint?

I was predisposed to dislike Hensher but could this be more classist, waspish, and condescending? What an asshole. Can't spell Tolkien, pretends to have read All Hallow's Eve but hasn't, knows nothing about Williams' uncle, and in all likelihood hasn't read the book he's reviewing.

What

Comments

[leaflet]

He is an Asshole. It's a dismissive and shallow review of a book about a (admittedly) strange and very complex man who was likely both a saint with sadist propensities. If his contemporaries thought highly of Williams, who is he to dismiss their opinions, even if Williams wasn't as accessible as they were?

[abject_reptile]

He's less interested in writing a review of the book, which isn't surprising if he hasn't read it (and my understanding is that, in general, reviewers don't read the books they review), than in telling us what he thinks about Williams. In some ways it reminds me of the early unfavourable reviews of Tolkien which amounted to 'I don't like this, I don't understand it, no one nowadays writes like this, it must be bad.' Williams is difficult and Hensher didn't make an effort but it's the snobbery and pettiness that bother me the most. Feh.

[leaflet]

The second one is definitely much better. Now that my diseased brain has recovered somewhat and is able to read it. I like the image at the end, of the author making off with one of the Williams manuscripts, escaping with his throat intact. :D

[semyaza]

Heh. Yes. That was a pleasant surprise at the end.